I support responsible ethical development of the rainforest. I don't support the irresponsible and unethical approach of the Bolsonaro government.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

I would consider myself a strong environmentalist. At the same time? I can also see where Brazil is going with this. By all rights the Amazon is theirs by sovereignty. And if people wish to save it (and the ecosystem that assists in facilitating the current air quality), then they will have to invest accordingly and throw business to Brazil. Otherwise, if it isn't being burnt it will continue to disappear at a clip of approximately 3 football fields a day.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Julian658 wrote:If you are a 3rd world person you do not care about global warming. You are mostly concerned with eating and putting a roof over your head. Global warming is only important for the elite in developed nations. Poor people in 3rd world countries need to burn wood to cook and stay warm at night. And lastly 3rd world nations do not have clean energy technology.

Every economic study on the effect of global warming comes to the conclusion that developing countries will be hit the hardest. It's all about "eating and putting a roof over one's head". Here's a study from 2018:

Rugoz wrote:That completely misses the point. The Amazon acts as a CO2 sink. It absorbs 2 billion tons of CO2 per year (or 5% of annual emissions).

So 7000 out of 2.1 million square miles of forest are on fire, that's like what, .000005% of annual global emissions that won't be absorbed? Oh, the humanity!

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

When you make posts like that, it seems like you think burning the rainforest is fine.

Is that what you think?

Yeah, my issue isn't with the tiny negligible fraction of lost rainforest, my problem is with the social and economic inequities. I'm concerned about real shit like people getting fucked over by a corrupt regime, not fake shit like .0003 percent of continent sized rain forest catching fire.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

The only thing about those fires that could possibly matter for the global environment is the amount of co2 released from burning forrest but even the 200 million tons of co2 released so far isn't even a rounding error to the 40 billion in annual global emissions.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Rugoz wrote:Every economic study on the effect of global warming comes to the conclusion that developing countries will be hit the hardest. It's all about "eating and putting a roof over one's head". Here's a study from 2018:

Sure, undeveloped countries will have less resources to deal with climate change. The point, is that very poor people are simply struggling too much to pay attention to the climate.

Sivad wrote:The only thing about those fires that could possibly matter for the global environment is the amount of co2 released from burning forrest but even the 200 million tons of co2 released so far isn't even a rounding error to the 40 billion in annual global emissions.

Have you guys discussed this for 5 pages to come up with nonsense like this? Sure, the one time effect of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is dramatic, especially since it is now a recurrent event in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Australia and even the Arctic.

But the rain forest is much more than that. 1/5 has been lost already, another fifth and the weather patterns in North and South America will change. The rain will fail and whole regions will turn into dry-land. Then cattle rangers won't have to set fires because wildfires will start spontaneously as in all dry regions of the world. Then the Amazon rain forest will turn from a carbon sink into a carbon source to accelerate climate change. With the rise of right-wing populism, this is likely to happen within a generation, or two at most.

Sivad wrote:Yeah, my issue isn't with the tiny negligible fraction of lost rainforest, my problem is with the social and economic inequities. I'm concerned about real shit like people getting fucked over by a corrupt regime, not fake shit like .0003 percent of continent sized rain forest catching fire.

There is a larger percent of forests in California get set on fire nearly every year and the corrupt democrats in charge of that state are happy to fuck over their citizens.

Sivad wrote:Yeah, my issue isn't with the tiny negligible fraction of lost rainforest, my problem is with the social and economic inequities. I'm concerned about real shit like people getting fucked over by a corrupt regime, not fake shit like .0003 percent of continent sized rain forest catching fire.

Then why are you in this thread, if the issue is unimportant?

Sivad wrote:The only thing about those fires that could possibly matter for the global environment is the amount of co2 released from burning forrest but even the 200 million tons of co2 released so far isn't even a rounding error to the 40 billion in annual global emissions.

I doubt that the the burning of the rainforest is as unimportant as you claim.

Atlantis wrote:Sure, the one time effect of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is dramatic,

No, it's not. It's a tiny fraction, less that 1%, of overall annual global emissions. Nothing about these fires is dramatic or catastrophic for the global environment, it's not even dramatic for the Amazon.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Sivad wrote::knife: No, it's not. It's a tiny fraction, less that 1%, of overall annual global emissions. Nothing about these fires is dramatic or catastrophic for the global environment, it's not even dramatic for the Amazon.

You ignore the purport of my message.

Anyways, just to humor you. Your comparison is off. Global emissions are about 100 million tons per day. Most of the fires started on August 10th, a few days ago they had produced 250 million tons (more now). In other words 2.5 million tons per day, or 2.5% of total global emissions. Since the burned forest cannot sequester CO2, the figure is double: 5% of total emissions. 250 million tons is also twice the amount of Brazil's total annual emissions. If other countries were to triple their CO2 emissions, we would be at around 120 billion tons annually.

No it's not. If I actually do the math, global emissions for 2018 came to 37.5 billion tons, 250 million tons from the Amazon is .7% of global emissions.

Global emissions are about 100 million tons per day. Most of the fires started on August 10th, a few days ago they had produced 250 million tons (more now). In other words 2.5 million tons per day, or 2.5% of total global emissions.

The only reason you'd do it by the day is to try to artificially inflate nothing into something. That's just brazen bullshit, dude, it makes zero sense to do that.

Since the burned forest cannot sequester CO2, the figure is double: 5% of total emissions.

You can't just double it, burn emission and co2 absorption aren't a 1:1, you just totally made that up.

250 million tons is also twice the amount of Brazil's total annual emissions. If other countries were to triple their CO2 emissions, we would be at around 120 billion tons annually.

Brazil has fires every year so what the fuck with the crazy bullshit? Just counting the fuel emissions and excluding the yearly fire emissions is deceptive, you just tried to trick everyone.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Hindsite wrote:There is a larger percent of forests in California get set on fire nearly every year and the corrupt democrats in charge of that state are happy to fuck over their citizens.

I exaggerated for effect, the real number is something like .3%. It's nothing.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health